Media enquiries- Please contact Lorraine Allanson on 07760752165.

Over the past few years much nonsense has been promoted by opponents to shale gas, unsupported by science and factual evidence. How many scientists, engineers and geologists do you know stand alongside the anti fracking movement? Think about it, if all the terrible claims they make were true, all those professionals would be leading the campaign.

2ND February 2017 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ANTI FRACKING MOVEMENT AND THEIR DESPERATE ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT LORRAINE ALLANSON.

On the 1st of February 2017 Lorraine Allanson was informed that Frack Free Groups were now promoting an on line story which was first published by Frack Free North Yorkshire. It is suspected that Russell Scott who is the registered owner of the domain name for FFNY had created the story. On monday the 30th January they sent a press release to media outlets with their ridiculous claims. No media took up the story as it was obviously a very weak piece of research.

This latest trumped up offering is that Lorraine Allanson or a member of her family, had direct financial connections to Third Energy in relation to a gas pipeline, one historically and one proposed. They claim that because of this assumed 'connection' Ms Allanson was not 'independent' and therefore her credibility in running the pro gas group 'Friends of Ryedale Gas Exploration' should be questioned.....

This latest offering by the anti fracking organisation is a blatant attempt to harass and discredit Ms Allanson. When they claim that few people show support for the industry there is a reason, people are openly bullied and their credibility threatened by the antis scheming and dirty tactics. Even the villagers at Kirby Misperton who expressed concern about the protest camp and the fact their cars were being parked dangerously on the road down the dark lane, were bullied on line. Now the villagers dare not speak out. The lovely peaceful protesting anti frackers version of democracy at work, bully and silence anyone who has the opposing opinion.

The article can be read in full via the link at the bottom of this piece. It claims that Third Energy submitted a scoping application for a gas pipeline and processing facility in 2012. The plans show the proposed route of the pipeline running CLOSE to Rains Farm, NOT under the land owned by Ms Allanson. The author also makes many assumptions about gas payments and ownership of the property. It should be noted that if it was Russell Scott who created this false piece of information, as we suspect, he is a suposed highly educated surveyor and yet he gets all his claims wrong and his research is of the lowest standard possible.

These are the questions the author asks at the end of the article:

Ms Allanson has answered the questions in red and read further on down for the full facts.

"FFNY requests that Mrs Allanson reads the research published and answers the following key questions;

1.Was Mrs Allanson aware of Third Energy’s 2012 scoping application, which included plans for installing an underground pipeline, and the construction of above ground infrastructure adjacent to her property? No, not at all.

2. If so, Did Mrs Allanson enter into any discussions with Third Energy regarding this scoping application prior to it being submitted to North Yorkshire County Council? Not applicable as I had no knowledge of the scoping application.

3. Has Mrs Allanson ever entered into any discussions or contractual arrangements with Third Energy regarding any future access to her property to allow the company to install an underground pipeline and associated infrastructure? No, never, no one in my family have ever had any discussions at all, EVER in all their years at the farm withn any gas companies or their representatives.

4. If so, what fees would Mrs Allanson receive to allow Third Energy access to her property to conduct the proposed work?" Not applicable as no discussions have ever taken place.

The article shows how the author has researched the land registry records and makes many mendacious assumptions. Lorraine phoned Russell Scott on his mobile number and left a message requesting that he call her to discuss the article because not one claim within it is true. Ms Allanson knew that Mr Scott would be well aware that once he released the story it would go nationwide due to Ms Allansons high profile in the shale gas debate. He would also know that even though it was a 'false news' story, Ms Allansons good name would be tarnished by the lies. Please note: Mr Scott has taken the cowards way out and failed to call her back. He likes to propagate mis information but is too afraid to enter into any direct discussion with the person he is harassing and insulting. We presume he has a good defence if he ever had to answer to a legal challenge for the defamation?

A few points to note about the quality of the research and to consider when reading any information used by the anti fracking groups:

The author does not even get the name of FORGE correct, he writes Friends of Ryedale Gas Extraction and it is Exploration, not extraction.

The author does not even spell the village of Allerston correctly, he writes Allerton, in both of the latest press releases.

The author claims that the pipeline will be under Rains farm's land in his report. The land that the diagram shows where the proposed pipeline will be laid belongs to another land owner and does NOT belong to Rains Farm. The land was sold off from Rains Farm in 1994. The scoping application is from 2012. The author is only 18 years out of date with his shoddy research of land ownership.....

The author also intimates that the Allanson family has previously been paid by a gas company for the National Transmission pipeline laid through fields close by. That pipeline was laid in the late 1960's. Those fields were sold off in 1974. The Allanson family have never rented nor owned those particular fields. The owner at that time took a one off payment for the pipeline.

Can you believe the author is linking Ms Allanson to the gas company based on another person taking a one off payment for a gas pipeline laid through fields around a quarter of a mile away from approx 50 years ago and because a proposed pipeline is close by and not under Rains Farm.

The author makes many poorly researched assumptions, his credibility is now in question as he looks ever more desperate.

Would you trust any other statements made by a person or organisation which uses lies to try and discredit a person whilst claiming its true? FALSE NEWS STORIES ARE VERY TOPICAL AT PRESENT. This is a perfect example and because of the internet is spread across the country at the press of a button.

Only last week the anti fracking movement did another press release trying to claim that Ms Allanson must have been one of the major objectors to a gas processing plant that was proposed near Thornton le Dale. She was not, far from it. They claimed one of the 'most vocal objectors' was Lorraine Allanson. The only piece of information they based that false assumption on was 2 random quotes in the Yorkshire Post from 2010. Ms Allanson was phoned out of the blue by a journalist and answered their questions, thats all. She has never hidden that fact and after viewing the plans she decided she was not opposed to it and refused to sign the petition. Ask the leading players of the AGHAST campaign, they are very offended that Ms Allanson is taking credit for all their hard work.

Do note that AGHAST did manage to get 15,000 signatures on their petition against the gas plant........ Now, lets just remind ourselves of how many signatures did FFR manage to get on theirs against KM8?....just over 1,000 when they handed it in to RDC....

It is hoped that the frack free organisation and their supporters enjoy looking foolish. The more press releases they produce of this calibre, the less likely the media will respond to any of their propaganda.

Ms Allanson will look forward to a public appology from all the frack free groups, web sites, social media forums and individuals who have posted and commented negatively on this fabricated story. It is an obvious personal attack by a ever more desperate group of people. The anti fracking organisations persecution of Lorraine Allanson may now be considered as harassment.

FULL TEXT FROM THE TIMES NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, it si subscription only therefore we have provided it here:

Friends of the Earth has been accused of exploiting a legal loophole to avoid sanctions by the charity regulator over misleading claims it made about fracking.

The Charity Commission dropped an investigation into the claims made by FoE after the environmental group told the regulator that they had been made by its non-charitable arm.

The Advertising Standards Authority investigated the claims that fracking could cause cancer, contaminate water supplies, increase asthma rates and send house prices plummeting. It found that they were misleading and told FoE not to repeat them.

However, FoE faced no action by the commission, which has much tougher powers than the ASA, including the ability to freeze bank accounts.

Cuadrilla, which plans to start fracking in Lancashire this year, has written to the commission urging it to reopen its investigation into FoE.

FoE claimed to the commission a year ago that the leaflet was published by its non-charitable arm, Friends of the Earth Limited. However, the company shares staff and premises with the charity Friends of the Earth Trust.

FoE also told the commission that since June 2015 its fracking campaign had been carried out “solely by Friends of the Earth Limited”. It said that its trustees had decided the charity should withdraw from all campaigning on fracking because it was too politically sensitive. Charities are forbidden under charity law from having a political purpose. The commission accepted FoE’s assurances and dropped its investigation into the leaflet. However, it has emerged that a few months after the commission stopped investigating, the FoE’s charitable arm resumed its campaign against fracking.

Craig Bennett, Friends of the Earth chief executive, said: “The Charity Commission is well aware that Friends of the Earth is campaigning on fracking and was informed in early August 2016 that the charity would be leading the campaign to oppose fracking, as ending all forms of fossil fuel extraction is critical in reducing climate change.”

He accused Cuadrilla of seeking to silence opposition to fracking.

FoE published an appeal last month for donations to its charity for its anti-fracking campaign and stated its intention to claim gift aid, meaning revenues would be boosted by taxpayers’ money.

In the letter to the commission, Francis Egan, Cuadrilla’s chief executive, said: “On the face of it Friends of the Earth charitable Trust has sought to exploit a loophole in your rules to avoid regulation and sanction, in the first place by misleading you and then by assuring you of a suspension of campaigning by the charity on the politically sensitive topic of fracking.

“It appears that Friends of the Earth regard the Charity Commission as being a toothless watchdog that rarely barks and never bites.”

The commission said it had received “a complaint about a leaflet published by the Friends of the Earth Trust Limited regarding fracking and is assessing the information provided to determine whether there are any regulatory concerns”. A spokeswoman added: “Whilst charities must be politically neutral, they may engage in campaigning and politically-sensitive activity where this activity supports the delivery of their charitable purposes and provided that they follow our guidance.”

After being exposed as totally misleadinbg the whole population of the United Kingdom FoE went on the defensive and claimed that the ASA had 'dropped' the case against them. In an unprecendeted move the CEO of the ASA released this statement:

Opinion piece: A fractious debate but a clear outcome

5 January 2017

One week into 2017 and the action we’ve taken to stop potentially misleading ad claims about fracking by Friends of the Earth has hit the national media and prompted widespread debate and commentary. But amidst the reports, the public comments by the parties involved and the social media chatter, there’s a risk that the facts become obscured.

So let me be clear. We told Friends of the Earth that based on the evidence we’d seen, specific claims it made in its anti-fracking leaflet about the effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water or property prices, or claims with the same meaning, cannot be repeated. We asked for an assurance that they wouldn’t be. Friends of the Earth gave us an assurance to that effect. Unless the evidence changes, that means it mustn’t repeat those claims in ads.

Friends of the Earth has said we “dropped the case”. That’s not an accurate reflection of what’s happened. We thoroughly investigated the complaints we received and closed the case on receipt of the above assurance. Because of that, we decided against publishing a formal ruling, but plainly that’s not the same thing as “dropping the case”. Crucially, the claims under the microscope mustn’t reappear in ads, unless the evidence changes. Dropped cases don’t have that outcome.

Resolving cases informally, usually following our receipt of an assurance that claims won’t be repeated, is an important tool in our toolkit, allowing us to be proportionate and targeted in how we tackle problems. No-one should be under any illusion that the process of looking into these matters is anything other than rigorous.

Advertisers of all kinds, be they commercial companies, charities or even government departments, sometimes fight tooth and nail to defend their right to promote their products, services or policies or to raise awareness of their causes or ideas. That’s perfectly legitimate. But when advertising claims aren’t properly supported by evidence and people are likely to be misled, we’ll step in to make sure they don’t reappear. What matters is advertisers are held to account when they need to be.

Fracking is clearly a highly contentious issue that polarises opinion. Both sides of the debate want to get their views across; want to win hearts and minds. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that. As an even-handed regulator, we don’t take sides. Friends of the Earth got it wrong on this occasion, but the businesses behind the fracking that it opposes also have to follow the advertising rules. Indeed, we’ve taken action before against the fracking industry for its own ad claims, when they haven’t stood up to scrutiny.

Debates between parties with polar opposite views can become highly fractious. But that won’t get in the way of us taking action to stop ads that we think are likely to mislead people from reappearing.

Colorado’s top medical official Dr. Larry Wolk told a local newspaper that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, doesn’t have any adverse health effects, as it doesn’t expose people to enough toxins to be harmful.

Larry Wolk, a practicing physician once voted Colorado’s pediatrician of the year, cited state health data to The Tribune that found the areas of Colorado with the most fracking don’t have higher rates of health conditions. In some cases, rates of health conditions are actually even lower than those reported where little or no fracking occurs.

In a massive boost to our campaign the GMB UNION IS NOW VOCALLY BACKING FRACKING. The GMB is the 3rd largest union in the country with over 600,000 members. We are delighted that the GMB union has publically stated its support for shale gas. After all, unions are about jobs and TO HAVE JOBS YOU NEED INDUSTRIES. The GMB will be helping people work together and to get the best deal for workers. To enable the workforce to benefit you have to support the industry in question as t...hey will be the job creator. The GMB suports jobs, what do the other unions who oppose shale gas support? Russian jobs? We hope our work with the GMB union went a little way to helping them make the right decision and back shale gas. QUOTE: Independent "One of the biggest trade unions has accused Jeremy Corbyn of formulating an energy policy that will not “keep the lights on” The GMB union said the policy to target 65% of electricity generated from renewables by 2030 was based on “wishful thinking”

Justin Bowden from the GMB union said the fracking ban was “naïve and short sighted, everyone gets how-over time-renewable energy sources have an important role to play in a sensibly concieved mixed energy policy. However wishful thinking doesn’t generate the power we need to heat homes, keep the lights on and the economy functioning; this means that until there are technolgical breakthroughs in carbon capture or solar storage then gas and nuclear power are the only reliable, low-carbon shows I town for all those days when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

"Limiting the UK’s options on achieving energy self-sufficiency by proposing an outright ban on fracking is naïve and short sighted. Gas is four times cheaper than electricity, the main reason why over 80 per cent of homes use gas for heating, and access to gas is a key part of every fuel poverty strategy.

"While we are waiting with our fingers crossed for the technology to arrive, or quadrupling the size of the electricity infrastructure and asking everyone with a gas boiler to rip it out and replace it with an electric one, we should not be having to depend on Russia, Qatar, Kuwait or some combination of these regimes to supply us with gas to heqat our homes and supply the gas for our crucial chemicals industry”

Yet another study which shows that fracking is not contaminating groundwater. The years of claims by the opponents to shale gas that the process contaminates groundwater do not add up. Click on the link below to read more information taken from indepth studies.

Saturday saw a devastating blow to the anti fracking movement when their claims that 2,000 protestors would be marching through the city of York. Far from being all Yorkshire residents as has been claimed by certain elements of the media and anti fracking movement, many had been bussed in from as far afield as London, Lancashire and the Cotswolds to name just a few places of origin. Even the campaign groups and the media cannot agree on the numbers involved with claims from a few hundred to 3,000. One thing can be sure, photos don't lie and pictures have only ever revealed a few hundred at best attending. A video released by Frack Free Ryedale shows the protest walking through the streets and claims that 'they just kept coming in their thousands' loses all credibility when the same faces and banners repeat within the film.

Another blow came to their costly campaign when the Wave 18 of the governments survey on peoples opinion of fracking showed support for the industry had grown. This may be due to the fact that more and more of their scare stories are being discredited by professional organisations.

PHOTO: NUMBER OF PROTESTORS IN YORK ON SATURDAY THE 31ST JULY 2016. HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS?

Today is the 30th of July. FOSSIL FUELS, ARE THEY DESTROYING OUR LIVES OR HAVE THEY IMPROVED OUR EXISTANCE? HOW WOULD OUR FUTURES COMPARE IF WE STOPPED USING THEM? THE DARK GREEN OF OUR POPULATION DESPERATELY TRY TO CONVINCE US THAT THEY HAVE A 'CATASTROPHIC' EFFECT ON OUR LIVES AND FUTURES ON THE PLANET.

People from the dark green community are openly terrified of fossil fuels and make extremely dramatic claims that our existance is about to end. You would think they would be leading by example, wouldnt you? If you were so terrifed of what fracking may bring to our country in relation to health impacts, climate change and industrialisation, would you smoke? Several leading players in the local anti fracking group do.....are they not concerned for their own health? Even worse, their family and friends health from passive smoking? After all the official Government warning is proven by science and not just scare stories..SMOKING KILLS. Many of those campaigners also are alarmed about climate change and yet......drive big gas guzzling cars......We know, they arrive in them to protest against fossil fuels and fracking. ONE WORD SPRINGS TO MIND HYPOCRITES. Champagne planet savers.

Nasty, what an image that word and those 5 letters conjour up. It creates such a negative description of anyone or anything....and that is exactly why it is used all the time by the anti fracking movement. They use it to try and undermine the credibility of anyone in favour of the shale gas industry, you see and hear that little word more and more in our lives, why? For one thing it appears that delegates on 'how to be an activist' course only learn one word.....nasty. Many people who are perhaps more politically minded and who have influence over so called 'grass roots groups' always use the word 'nasty' to describe anyone who opposes their ideology. Show support for the industry and you are labelled as 'nasty' Worse still, if anyone speaks out in favour or reveals the flaws and deceit in the fractivists arguments, their response? You are 'nasty' or 'nasty and personal'

It is a shame that in the UK we can no longer have an intelligent debate. Because true science does not support their scare stories the anti fracking campaigners have resorted to just using one word to try and win their cause....nasty.

Ever thought about the possible positives of shale gas?? Bill Butterworth has sent this for people to contemplate:

"Shale gas and cancer risk. Shale gas is a clean burn. Petrol is not. Diesel is worse. Coal is worse still and using Lignite (brown coal) is the even worse, most polluting of the commonly used hydrocarbon fuels. So, switching to clean-burn shale gas as an automotive fuel would reduce pollution in the cities and reduce cancer risks and many other diseases including asthma and heart diseases. Shale will buy us time to work out how to be much more sustainable. Try www.safeshale.co.uk"

Oh dear, fractivists seem to believe that most people will believe their beliefs.....and if you don't then the name calling begins and you are classed as not being capable of having, or forming your own opinion. Asthma rates is the latest of their poor attempts to condemn shale gas using health issues. It is always worth reading the whole article that they refer to as there is usually a disclaimer in the small print. The media and fractivists fail to read those and create scary headlines to do just that, scare people. If you live near a shale gas area you are actiually less affected by asthma than if you live in an area with no fracking. Read more on this here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/21/pa-health-data-report-shatters-claims-fracking-causes-asthma/

AMA's Attempt to Link Asthma with Fracking Is Flawed, States the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

There has been much propaganda lately by the opponents to shale gas that fracking will cause higher rates of asthma in communities living close to well sites. As usual the study used to produce their scare story is highly flawed. See the link below:

We are often told by Green groups and wind farm enthusiasts that wind turbines will solve our energy requirements and locally, even propose that wind farms would be welcomed in Ryedale. This artcle has appeared in an edition of Fox news. Objections abound amongst rural communities against proposed wind farms and against the Green groups, who more often than not do not live in the areas where the turbines are proposed. Here is an excert from the article, click on the link below to read the full piece.

"Wealthy urbanites and climate-change activists may like the idea of wind turbines, but a growing number of rural residents like the Orlandinis don’t. They don’t want the noise, property-value depreciation, and visual blight that accompanies modern wind-energy projects"

A MUCH PUBLICISED CANCER STUDY HAS BEEN RETRACTED AND THEN RE RELEASED. IT HAS BEEN USED AGAINST PLANNING APPLICATIONS. NOW IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT IT EXAGERATED THE CANCER RISK DUE TO FRACKING BY ONLY 725000% WOW THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE TRUTH.

A previous cancer study that has been used against planning permissions and is still up on Frack Off (etc) was retracted last month.

Firstly the initial study put the cancer risk within 1 mile of a mile at 2.9 in 10000, which is above EPA safety levels (hence why the anti fracking lobby jumped on it).

The re-calculated data (the researchers made mistakes in their Excel spreadsheet) now puts the actual risk at 0.04 in 1,000,000.

So the original study was out by 725,000%.

Given the 'Fracking causes Cancer' meme used by anti fracking groups the data error and recalculation should have been bigger news in the UK, but the media has decided it isnt worth publicising. Biased media?

The paper was re-released July 11th. A quick check at DrillOrDrop finds no mention - in line with previous science that states very low risk or no effect - or even the EPA 5 year fracking study, none of which seemed to warrant a headline at DrillOrDrop, the 'independent' web site on fracking......

From The Times newspaper on the 11th of July. The article reveals the more sinister side of the anti fracking movement. To this date Lorraine Allanson still has no broadband service due to the very rural position of her business it makes it very difficult to receive a high speed service. Beeline Broadband cut off the service to her business on the 1st of June. Beeline are an operator which is supposed to serve more difficult rural properties and it is believed that they receive some funding from BT and the EU to do so.

Broadband companies cannot just terminate a service and infact legally should be signed up to the ADR which will help resolve any disputes when neither party can agree. Beeline Broadband is not aligned to this service as it should be. A broadband company cannot just terminate anyones contract without enetering into discussions. It must be noted that Glenn Garrett the director of Beeline Broadband has failed to enter into any discussions whatsover and ignores all communications from Miss Allanson.

The actions of Glenn Garrett has had a hugely negative affect on Miss Allansons ability to run her business and the effect has been that many challenging situations have arisen due to the loss of broadband. There has been significant financial losses involved too. This of course was the object of Glenn Garretts actions, to cause as much disruption to a rural business soley for political reasons. When the reporter asked Glenn Garrett what evidence he had to support his accusations against Miss Allanson he was unable to produce anything nor could even recall whether he had ever read what the complaint against her was by a third party and what he had supposidly based his decision upon.

Here is the text from The Times:

When Lorraine Allanson spoke out in favour of fracking, she expected resistance from neighbours worried about the disturbance or impact on house prices. She did not expect to become a victim of what she believes to be a campaign of bullying and intimidation that threatens her bed and breakfast and holiday cottage business.

While she was giving evidence in May in support of an application to frack near her home in North Yorkshire, an opponent of fracking who supplies her broadband wrote to her stating that he was going to cut off her service.

The application for Kirby Misperton was approved later that day by North Yorkshire county council and Third Energy plans to start fracking at the end of this year or early next.

Miss Allanson had decided to speak out because she believed that unfounded fears were being spread about fracking. She had heard similar scare stories more than 20 years ago when conventional gas extraction began in the area and they had been proved incorrect. She believes that fracking would be good for the local economy and be safely regulated.

Her intervention infuriated campaigners from Frack Free Ryedale, some of whom circulated an image comparing her to Jabba the Hutt, the slug-like alien from the Star Wars films.

On May 23, as she was giving evidence at the council’s planning meeting, Glenn Garrett, director of Beeline Broadband, a local rural broadband supplier, wrote her a letter giving her seven days’ notice that her broadband service would be terminated. It stated: “This decision is final and no discussion will be entered into.”

Mr Garrett claimed to have received a complaint that Miss Allanson’s broadband service had been used to send abusive messages. She denied this and asked for details of the complaint.

She wrote: “As you well know, I run a rural business which is highly dependent upon access to broadband . . . You are heavily involved with the Frack Free Ryedale movement. I am confident that this is the driving force in your actions.”

Mr Garrett ignored her request and cut her off. He has since failed to respond to a solicitor’s letter accusing him of breaching his contract with Miss Allanson for political reasons. He denied that he had cut her off because of her support for fracking.

Councillors who voted in favour of Third Energy’s application have received anonymous abusive messages. One of them, Peter Sowray, said: “I had a few nasty letters and the odd nasty phone call. It was a bit of a shock. [They were] calling me names.”

Janet Sanderson, a North Yorkshire Conservative county councillor, issued a statement in support of Miss Allanson, saying it was sad day when people were “unable to express their views freely without fear of retribution”.

John Dewar operations director at Third Energy spoke to Farming UK to allay the fears of any farmers who may be worried about fracking. Farmers wife, Sarah Houlston, previously spoke to Farming UK about her fears that fracking may contaminate her husbands farm water bore. Sarah married a farmer, and moved to Yorkshire to join her husbands farming family and now lives close to Kirby Misperton.

Is the anti fracking campaign genuinely concerned about the environement? This article from the USA spells out some of the flaws in their stance and campaign against the shale gas industry. This would also seem to apply to the UK. Click on the link to read more.

The anti fracking movement like to act 'big' but they are actually very small in number. Few support them across North Yorkshire. This picture clearly shows why we can say that. Frack Free groups claim that the 4365 letters of objection NYCC received against the application by Third Energy represents the majority of residents. These objection letters were from across the whole of the UK, 64% of those were template letters. Their claims of 'No social license' is hardly an acceptable claim when there are 601,500 people living in North Yorkshire, 5.3 million in the whole of Yorkshire and almost 65 million in the whole of the UK.

Some of the leading advocates against the shale gas industry and members of the anti fracking movement have used very questionable behaviour and propaganda against the seven councillors who approved the application and anyone who supports the industry since the application was approved.

*The picture states under 4000 objections the final figure on the day was 4365.

The anti fracking movement create reposts and studies to try and support their claims against the gas and oil industry. Dig deep into these reports and studies and it is soon obvious that they have not used reliable methods and their is usually somewhere within them a 'disclaimer'of sorts. This report is about the cancer risks of living near shale gas wells.

How much support does the anti fracking movement have in a village which has seen protests and demonstrations? REMEMBER BALCOMBE? We look at the Parish Councillor election results from May 2016. As ever, the figures reveal the truth and no one can lie about their numbers of support. Votes tell the local story.

The anti fracking movement likes to claim that they have the majority of support for their stance against shale gas. After all the protests and suposed opposition in Balcombe a couple of years ago. Fracking was used as a main topic in the recent election for a parish councillor and consequently produced an intesting result. In a head to head between an anti fracking candidate and one who was not against fracking, guess which one won? YES, the one who was not against shale gas. There was a 44% turn out and Carol Ann Dutton polled 414 votes compared to the anti fracking candidate who ONLY polled 232.

From the Sunday Times 5th June 2016. The Green dream of wind is not so viable after all

Blow to turbines as wind industry runs out of puff

Tony Grew

June 5 2016, 12:01am, The Sunday Times

England is not windy enough to sustain any more onshore wind turbines, the industry’s trade body has admitted.

Hugh McNeal, the head of RenewableUK, said that while there was a case for more onshore wind farms to be built elsewhere, wind speeds in England meant new plants were economically unviable without a subsidy.

The benefits of onshore windfarms have divided political opinion, with supporters claiming they generate the cheapest energy in Britain. Critics claim they are ineffective and blight the countryside.

Last year the government stopped any new public subsidies for them.

McNeal, who joined the industry body from the Department of Energy and Climate Change two months ago, told The Sunday Telegraph that new windfarms in England would not be able to compete with the price of power produced from gas. Some gas plants are eligible for government subsidies.

He said: “We are almost certainly not talking about the possibility of new [onshore] plants in England. The project economics wouldn’t work; the wind speeds don’t allow for it.”

The admission came despite McNeal maintaining windfarms were now the cheapest form of new energy generation in Britain.

He added: “If plants can be built in places where people don’t object to them and if, as a result of that, over their whole lifetime the net impact on consumers against the alternatives is beneficial, I need to persuade people we should be doing that.”

He said that any windfarms already planned for England would have secured government subsidies.

Keith Anderson, chief executive of ScottishPower Renewables welcomed McNeal’s words. He told The Sunday Telegraph: “The industry has been in danger of behaving like salivating subsidy junkies and trying to beat the government over the head on onshore wind. We need huge pragmatism from the industry to work with the government. I am confident that in one way, shape or form we can find a future for onshore wind.”

Windfarms granted planning permission before the government changed its policy on subsidies will see onshore wind capacity double as part of ministers’ commitment to produce 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Of the 5,300 onshore wind turbines in operation across the UK, around 1,200 are in England and more than 2,800 in Scotland.

The cost to taxpayers has been more than £800m a year in subsidies, equivalent to an extra £10 a year on an annual domestic energy bill.

The former environment secretary Owen Paterson has called onshore wind “a failed medieval technology which during the coldest day of the year so far produced only 0.75% of the electricity load”.

The Scottish government is more supportive of onshore wind than Whitehall. Its target is to generate 100% of Scotland’s gross annual electricity consumption from renewable sources, including wave, wind and tidal, by 2020.

The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that as 70% of planned windfarms are in Scotland, its renewables plans will be disproportionately affected. She called the UK government’s subsidy cuts “an extremely bad example to other countries” on tackling climate change.

Back in the early 1970's the Shetland Isles seemed to be under threat from the oil and gas industry in the North Sea. See how the doomsayers have been proven wrong from then and how the Shetlands has prospered. Lick on the link for a short informative video.

Since the planning application to hydraulically fracture the existing well at kirby Misperton was approved on the 23rd of May 2016, the anti-fracking movement has launched an agressive and vindictive campaign against the councillors who voted in favour. This was a democratic process and because it did not produce the result that the anti fracking groups and campaigners desired they now claim it was undemocratic.....

Councillor Blackie has become something of a hero as he spoke wishing for the application to be refused and voted against it. This is his perogative and he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, when he spoke he made three glaring statements which proved he had not read and understood the application correctly.

1/ Cllr Blackie claimed that there would be 150 HGV's over a period of a couple of days......There will be 56 days of work and on 12 of those days there will be the highest number of HGV movements ranging from 15 to 48 per day, that includes round trips. Therefore the most there could possibly be would be 96, that is only 2 thirds of the number he claimed.

2/ Cllr Blackie insinuated that the pile of shipping containers would resemble Southampton docks. Did he not see that the plan for using the stacked up wall of shipping containers has changed and now a sound intenuation barrier is to be used with only a few containers.

3/ Cllr Blackie surely knows his geography and did he not visit the site of KM8 when the rest of the committee did? He claims that the site is a 'a wonderful slice of pure moors landscape' The moors are a few miles away, the landscape around KM8 is NOT moorland.

Fracking: 'Yorkshire has the chance to be the centre of European industry' Click on the lick to read the full article. We would like Yorkshire's rural areas open for business all year and not just seasonal. Young people able to have long term employment and an end to winters on the dole. Yorkshire and Britain open for business and not cowed by the minority who campaihgn against the Shale Gas industry whilst using myths and scare stories to support their far fetched claims of 'devastation, destruction and even death'

YORKSHIRE leading the way with the Shale Gas industry just as we have led the way with many other industries. OPEN FOR BUSINESS!

Environmental permits issued to Third Energy for Kirby Misperton 8 on the 11th April 2016

After rigorous assessment of Third Energy's application and public consultation responses, the Environment Agency has granted the environmental permits that Third Energy need to operate at Kirby Misperton.

Third Energy UK Gas Ltd applied to the Environment Agency for environmental permits for their Kirby Misperton 8 site. The company plan to carry out hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking) of an existing well for

shale gas'

After completing a thorough assessment, we are confident that the permits issued will ensure that the right controls are in place to protect people and the environment. The permits set out the conditions that Third Energy must follow to protect groundwater, surface water and air quality and to ensure the safe storage, management and disposal of wastes.

A copy of the permits issued along with decision documents which explain our decision making process are available by following the link below.

The government’s chief scientific adviser has urged politicians to embrace fracking as part of a mixed energy policy, alongside renewables technology, conventional gas and nuclear power.

After the Paris conference on climate change, Sir Mark Walport insisted it would be essential for Britain to embrace a range of energy options, if tough carbon emissions targets were to be achieved without incurring huge costs.

...

“We need a mix of power solutions,” Sir Mark said. “Decarbonisation is a journey, not a single event. Wind investment makes sense, but is it a question of wind or gas? No.

“We need multiple solutions, including nuclear. We inevitably focus on supply, but we need to think about demand reductions as well.”

Fracking — non-conventional gas extraction — was potentially a viable part of the energy supply mix, he argued.

A report by the Royal Society had analysed issues of earth tremors, groundwater pollution and methane leaks and found “from an engineering perspective this is something that is a safe thing to do.”

At an event at the Glasgow Science Centre, Sir Mark said: “Their conclusion said, if you engineer [fracking] and regulate it properly, while no drilling technology is absolutely safe, if this is well done then there is no significant issue with seismicity at all.

“The drilling is deep under the water table, so there should be no contamination; and, as long as you manage the valves properly, then there will be no leak of methane.

Critics of fracking, he added, had focused on other areas. Some of its opponents simply disliked fossil fuels, some did not like the companies involved in fracking and a third group were unhappy about having large-scale engineering works close to their own community.

The recent court case in Scanton Pennsylvania regarding the case by two families in Dimock claiming their water was contaminated by the Cabot Oil and Gas company finally came to court after 8 years. The first statement by their lawyer admitted the case was not about toxic water. They had no evidence and neither did their 'experts' Dimock has been the cenre of attention for years after Josh Fox made a film claiming that reisdents could ignite their tap water. Yes they could, but they have been able to do that long before Cabot came into the area. During the trial it was revealed that the Ely family camplained about their contaminated water several months before Cabot drilled the first well. They claimed their children had been made sick but they had never taken them to see a doctor. Scott Ely owed the tax office $90,000. He built a $1 million home on a lot he claimed was contaminated. The case against Cabot collapsed except the jury decided they would teach 'big business' a lesson and awarded the two families over $4 million dollars between them for 'nuisance' Dimock has suffered as a town for years becaus of this and local residents fed up with the whole issue of fracking destroying the image of their town made this video, click on the link to view.

The statement below is taken from the website of our local MP Kevin Hollinrake. We believe that this shows a mature, sensible and intelligent approach to Shale Gas Extraction in Ryedale by working together with operators and statutory regulators so that the benefits of gas production can be shared by all and in a safe and acceptable way. We look forward to further news:-

As 2016 gets underway I wanted to set out what actions I propose to take with regards to possible shale gas extraction in Thirsk and Malton this year.

I am aware, from the correspondence I have received, that many people still have concerns about the effect fracking might have on our countryside and on the environment. I remain convinced, however, that fracking should be part of the UK’s energy mix but only if it is done in a balanced and measured way. This means robust regulations in place to protect the environment, minimise the impact on communities, groundwater monitoring, community benefits and exclusion of surface activity relating to hydraulic fracturing in protected areas.

Therefore I intend to take the following measures to ensure this happens.

First, I have arranged a Producers Summit on February 8th 2016 to discuss a regional plan. Invited are Cuadrilla, Third Energy, Ineos and IGas Energy, which are all shale gas extraction companies with an interest in production in the North of England. North Yorkshire County Council and Northern Gas Networks are also expected to attend. The aim of this meeting will be to create a model of what shale gas extraction would look like in terms of visual and environmental impact and how this can be communicated. I believe this is important because, until now, there has not been a clear picture of the visual impact on our countryside so that we can assess how it will affect us.

Secondly, I intend to keep up the pressure I began in 2015 to get some clear answers and commitments to key issues such as the independent supervision of regulations; a robust ‘local plan’ for fracking covering a five year rollout; detailed solutions for concerns such as traffic plans, distance from schools, town and villages and impacts on other important parts of our economy; real time, publicly available environmental monitoring; assurances that community financial benefits will go directly to communities affected. I will raise questions verbally in Parliament, table written questions and take part in backbench debates and speak to ministers regularly until I get the answers to these key questions.

Thirdly, to add weight to this commitment I am going to set up an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Shale Gas Regulation and Planning so that I can bring together other MPs (from both sides of the House) who have potential shale gas extraction in their constituencies or who have an interest in it. Together we will push for robust environmental and planning regulations to ensure that our constituents’ concerns are addressed and that fracking is conducted in the balanced and measured way we are all seeking.

Fourthly, I have had a very interesting meeting with Northern Gas Networks this week. They told me that they have transportation devices which could take the gas from the shale field and distribute it directly into the network via plastic pipes. This would therefore mean that there would be no need for gas transportation by tankers. What’s more they told me that it is possible to put a network in a village and supply it directly with low cost and, in some cases, completely free gas to those with a particular need. I am looking forward to discussing this with them in more detail to find out how our communities can benefit.

I will keep you posted on all these developments and will be updating my website regularly. As soon as we have a visual plan, a local plan and further commitments on environmental and planning regulations I will share them with you.

The UK needs to start fracking to establish the economic impact of shale gas, an industry-funded body has said.

The Task Force on Shale Gas says only after fracking has begun will it be possible to determine how much gas can be recovered.

It said shale could create thousands of jobs and improve UK energy security, but doubted if it would cut prices.

The Task Force on Shale Gas said without reliable estimates of how much gas could be recovered, companies would not start to develop the industry.

The report calls on the government and local communities to allow initial exploratory wells.

Chairman of the task force, Lord Smith, said that shale could help cut emissions by replacing more polluting coal: "We need to be even clearer... about shale gas providing a bridge to a low carbon future."

However, he said he doubted whether shale gas would cut UK energy prices "because its almost impossible to tell if that is true or not".

Unlike previous reports, it does not attempt to estimate how much employment the industry could generate, but argued that thousands of jobs could result.

Property Prices:

It admitted that the impact on prices of properties affected by fracking was uncertain and that owners of homes near fracking sites could see values fall.

Lord Smith said: "They are understandably worried. The evidence that we can see particularly from the States is that there is a dip in value but then it recovers." He said that both the industry and government must ensure that any community payment scheme directly compensates property owners: "The people most directly affected should get some direct benefit."

Shale gas production has reduced energy prices in the US, but the UK is part of a wider EU gas market and the volumes of shale gas produced here would be modest in EU terms.

Final Report:

Lord Smith criticised the government's recent decision to axe funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology because it was crucial to creating a shale gas industry.

"One of the things that we highlight in this report is our disappointment that the government's decision to abandon the Carbon Capture and Storage fund," he said.

The report is the fourth and final document from the Task Force on Shale Gas.

The body, which is funded by the fracking industry, was set up "to provide an impartial, transparent and evidence-based assessment of the potential benefits and risks of shale gas extraction to the UK". An earlier report called for a new regulator for the industry to improve public confidence in the sector.

In July the task force said that fracking could be done safely in the UK with "rigorous regulation".

The government has said it will make a final decision on whether to allow shale gas drilling at two sites in Lancashire, after it was rejected by Lancashire County Council in June. An appeal will be heard next year on plans by the energy firm Cuadrilla to frack at Roseacre and Little Plumpton.

Shown below is a copy of the letter written by Malcolm Smith, Chairman of Scarborough Probus Club following their Club visit to Third Energy at Knapton Generating Station and which was published in The Scarborough News.

“Fracking is very much in the news at the moment. We all know our energy requirements are increasing rapidly and power stations are being closed far quicker than replacements are coming on stream. One source of power, of course, is natural gas. However, the normal wells, quite a few of which are in our area, are starting to become exhausted.

As chairman of Scarborough Probus Club, I arranged a visit to West Knapton Power Station which utilises natural gas to power the generator. The site (which I’m sure few people even know exists) is owned by Third Energy, one of the companies which wants to ‘frack’ to produce gas that is trapped in the rock formations below us.

The site is very well hidden off the main A64 road and surrounded by trees. The company has taken great pains to make the site as unobtrusive as possible. The actual generator is driven by an industrialised version of a 747 jet engine which produces in the region of 80,000 hp – an amazing level of power – and we were told it is capable of providing all the household requirements of York if the industrial areas were discounted.

We had a number of our members who have experience in civil engineering and other areas, which meant we put some deep and probing questions to the company rep after our tour of the site and during the company presentation. At last some real facts were learned and the scare stories we realised were just that!

The difference here from the American sites is that Third Energy are going to drill much, much, deeper than the American ones, as far down as 7,000 feet. This is way below our water table, which everyone was concerned might be contaminated. The actual ‘frack’ will only be a fraction of an inch in depth and it will only be done once or twice for each well.

We were all impressed by the presentation and many of our fears were allayed. The degree of regulation is far greater than the American model. We came away feeling the worries are minimal and this could be a real source of energy in future years.

FLAMINGO LAND ZOO, the 5th most popular tourist attraction in the UK has made a statement and concludes that the ANTI-FRACKING campaign is: 'LACKING IN TANGIBLE EVIDENCE' and 'MOST OF THE PROVIDED INFORMATION IS SUBJECTIVE AND EMOTIONAL' In a departure from the opposition to Third Energy's scheme by some businesses a Flamingo Land spokesman said it was supportive of any initiatives which result in job creation, especially local employment. He said following meetings with the energy firm and residents to get a feel for the arguments on both sides, the resorts' owners had concluded the anti-fracking campaign was "lacking in tangible evidence" and "most of the provided information is subjective and emotional". **Taken from the York Press article which, as with most media, used the headline grabbing 'Flamingo Land describes possible fracking sites as "massive concern" When reading the full article what is truly damning is that Flamingo Land is not convinced at all by the very weak on supportive evidence of the anti-fracking campaign**

Another positive step closer towards Third Energys application to Hydraulically Fracture the KM8 well at Kirby Misperton.

The Environment Agency press release states:

'The Environment Agency is launching a second period of consultation on Third Energy’s application for permits to carry out fracking at a site in North Yorkshire. Local residents and interested groups are invited to submit any new relevant information on the draft permits for Third Energy UK Gas Ltd’s proposals for shale gas exploration and production at Kirby Misperton, before a final decision is made on whether the permits are issued. The Environment Agency is minded to issue the permits following a rigorous environmental assessment of the proposed activities, taking into account all of the comments made in the first consultation that closed in August.' The info then goes on to say the following: 'We will only issue a permit if we believe that harm to the environment, people and wildlife will be minimised and that the operator has the ability to meet the conditions of the permit. Providing a business can prove that the proposed activities meets all the legal requirements, including environmental, technological and health requirements, then we are legally obliged to issue a permit, even if some people do not approve of the decision'

BRITAIN’S green energy barons are getting huge taxpayer subsidies to build diesel generator energy farms which are exactly the kind of polluting energy source their wind and solar farms are meant to replace.

The need for demand to meet peaks in power has become more acute because old coal and nuclear power stations have been retired and fewer than expected new gas-fired generating stations built. Wind and solar power firms are being encouraged to install the generators, which pour out carbon dioxide (CO2) a greenhouse gas, and toxic nitrogen dioxide (NO2), on their sites in order to provide standby generating capacity and prevent the lights going out during periods of peak demand. Diesel farms close to wind and solar farms are favoured because they have connections to the national grid.

The surge in diesel farms is directly linked to Britain’s decision to try and rely more on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. These switch off when the wind drops or when the sky is cloudy or dark. The Department of Energy & Climate Change (Decc) is offering consumer-funded subsidies to companies that install short term operating reserve. Decc created the capacity market under which companies are paid to keep fossil-fuel power stations on standby, civil servants not realising that this would lead to a bonanza in generators that burn diesel oil, second only to coal in CO2 and pollution emissions.

About 1,000 such diesel units were installed in the past 18 months, with a similar number being planned, making diesel farms among the fastest-growing energy sectors. The incentive lies in a lucrative subsidy system, which includes:

• Standby subsidies: energy firms can get up to £83,000 a year for each 2MW diesel generator they put on the grid, simply for making it available even if is not switched on .

• Operating subsidies: when it is switched on, diesel farm owners get up to £360 per megawatt hour, nine times the normal rate, as they can charge premium rates in peak times.

• A Treasury “cashback” scheme: investors building diesel farms can claim 30% of the cost from taxpayers, plus exemption from capital gains tax when diesel farms are sold.

City investors have been quick to spot the multiple subsidies and about 95 companies have submitted more than 150 planning applications and a few companies have confirmed that they have taken advantage of contracts under which they can be paid for diesel plant generation even when it is not used.

Due to the two main renewables available in the UK, wind and solar being unable to produce a reliable consistent source of energy we find ourselves in this ludicrous position. It should be noted that opponents to Shale Gas often claim that the companies involved are money grabbing capitalists. These Green companies involved with renewables have been very keen to do a cash grab of tax payers money to help boost their profits and earning capacity.....Capitalists too?

Great news as techonolgy develops ever changing the world of High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing. This adds another nail in the coffin of the opponents argument that HVHF poisons water. There was never any evidence to support their claims but this makes their case harder to claim.

Below is a letter recently published (30th October) in the Yorkshire Post. This perfectly illustrates what causes us at Forge to shake our heads in disbelief. The contents of the letter are utterly and totally inaccurate. All local residents will know that the The Kirby Misperton Well Site cannot possibly be seen from Wrelton. Additionally the letter writer wishes to promote the view that tourism in Ryedale will be ruined when we at FORGE know that that decades of gas extraction in the area has had no adverse consequences for tourism whatsover. The ignorance and lack of knowledge of critics who are opposed to fracking knows no bounds and yet some people still believe them.

"FOR many years we have enjoyed our summer break in the Pickering area. While there this year we visited Farndale show (in the rain) and signed the petition opposing fracking. Having read almost daily of the pros and cons about this issue, now I am doubtful if we will visit the area in future because I cannot accept this fracking business as safe to the welfare of the population.

We have stayed at different caravan sites and this year as we looked out of our van window from Wrelton we gazed upon an eyesore of a jib which is the well site at Kirby Misperton. A most unwelcome sight in the heart of a beautiful area of North Yorkshire. I have empathy for all the residents having to see this monstrosity every day and the trepidation they feel about the doubts this drilling can create. Thus, if more of these edifices were to be dotted all over the district then, I am sorry I will not be there to condemn them.

I, along with maybe thousands more visitors, will be reluctant to take unknown risks to health and see the best vistas spoiled. So if this industry is allowed to thrive then my last visit has ended. Having said that, I will sneak back to see the Flying Scotsman in March.

What is Friends of Ryedale Gas Exploration all about? It was founded by local business woman Lorraine Allanson who could see that the gas industry in Ryedale was already an inherent part of the local economy but now had the chance to develop in a way which could benefit the whole community. The discovery of the Bowland Shale lying directly below Ryedale was very significant for the future of Ryedale's economy and the UK's energy security. Decades of gas extraction in the region has proven that the gas industry can operate safely and discretely with minimum impact upon the area.

Times change and protest groups now argue that the process called fracking used to recover the gas is not to their liking. In the USA over 1 million wells have been fracked using the same process. A very small percentage have had any issues. The problems that have arisen have been due to lack of regulation or bad working practises. In the UK the industry is far more regulated and there are many differences between the processes that each country allows. For example in the USA they could use toxic, non disclosed chemicals in the water used in the act of fracturing. In the UK non toxic chemicals only are allowed and have to be passed by the Environment Agency and disclosed to the public. More information can be found to refute the claims of the opposers on the tab 'Myths' at the top of this page.

Take a look around this web site and we hope to try and answer some of your questions and explain about the gas industry in Ryedale. You can add comments and ask questions too. We will do our best to answer as many as we can.

Click on the link below to view an article in the Yorkshire Post Newspaper dated the 5th of August 2015 made by John Dewar the operations manager at Third Energy who propose to test frack an existing well at Kirbymisperton.

Ryedale is at a significant crossroads. In the coming months we in Ryedale will have the opportunity to open a new chapter in the continued safe development of a natural resource that lies beneath our feet. Gas has been safely and discretely exploited here for several decades, supplying power to 40 000 homes in Yorkshire and co-existing very happily with the traditional local industries of tourism and farming.

Under government regulation, hydraulic fracturing can ensure that this supply continues safely for the local area and for the nation, jobs can be created, economic growth can continue and Ryedale can portray itself as a vibrant, forward-looking area, open to investment and innovation.

Please read our webpages, get to know the facts about fracking and the history of gas in Ryedale, and add your support to the cause.

The anti-fracking groups in the UK are surprisingly well funded. Leaflets, posters, travel organised meetings and all the activity takes funding. Just try putting “Funding of ant-fracking groups” into your search engine. There are dozens of hits. There are significant and repeated rumours, with some evidence, that Russia (led by a man who understands energy politics on a different level compared to our amateurish mutterings) is funding anti-shale groups. Further, that he has been doing so for a long time and intends to keep doing so. There are also rumours of another, large, oil-producing state, is similarly funding anti-shale groups. Very little of the anti-shale arguments are fact-based and there is a saying which is relevant; “Distort the truth far enough and it becomes a lie.” One thing is at least questionable; these anti-fracking people, are they really pro-British and pro-environment? It appears not.

I find something suspicious about the anti-fracking groups in the UK. They are well organised, very vocal, lots of supporting paperwork and signs, much spent on travel and communications - all very well funded. I suggest, dear reader, that you put "Funding of anti-fracking groups* into your search engine. Interesting isn't it?There is often something in what these groups say. The difficulty I have is that (and here I quote) "If the truth is distorted far enough, it becomes a lie." Much of the anti-fracking rhetoric is not science-based, distorted and hysterical. Whose jobs are they protecting? Not British.

The anti-fracking lobby are polluting the countryside in Ryedale with their dreadful signage everywhere. Its jolly good to see somebody talking sense about the real issues instead of scaremongering. Lets have some FORGE signs displayed.

Hi Good To hear someone talking sense and standing up for the local community and the benefits it will bringI worked at Ebberstone Moor and at Kirby Misperton as H&S advisor and every effort was made to protect the environment, but one thing needs addressing and that's the way we get water to the site. The biggest disruption to the local community is the quantity and size of water tankers used in the drilling process,water relays using hi volume pumps could be the answer. The fire service use this system all the time.I don't know how the costs stack up but it would go a long way to limiting the disruption to the local community.

Thank you Tommy for your comment. I can reassure regarding the truck movements to get the water required on site. There is an existing pipeline from Knapton Generating Station to the well site. The water will be sent via that route and not by trucks.

Lorrainehow do you deal with the contaminated water that is produced with the gas after the shale has been fracked. I guess that will have to be trucked to a suitable site for de-contamination prior to dumping it in a river?

Thank you for your question which I put directly to Third Energy. They tell me that the answer is clearly stated in the planning application. For your edification, all the flow back water that comes to surface will be contained in special holding tanks and at a convenient time will be sent by truck to a permitted waste disposal company. The disposal company will have to be qualified, approved, permitted and experienced in dealing with such waste products. The disposal company will then separate the fluids from the solids. The solids will go to specially approved sites and the liquid will then be sent to a sewage company which will treat the water till it meets a very high quality level where it can be put back into the mains water supply or into rivers. Some containers will remain on site to handle any slugs of flow back water that the well could push out, even after the initial clean up. Due to the extreme tightness of the various hybrid formations in the Bowland shale, plus the results of the logs and core analysis that was taken by Third Energy during the drilling of the well, they do not anticipate any, natural water coming back from the well, but just in case it does, some containers will be kept on site during the production phase and once a suitable volume has been accumulated, it will be handled in the same way as above.

Good website and good initiative. Shale gas offers the opportunity to exploite a (potentially) significant natural resource within the UK. The economic and social benifits to both the local community and the country are considerable. Oil and gas production is one of the most responsible and regulated industries in the UK. Gas is one of the cleanest energy sources available. What's not to like?

Lorraine, it is really good to see some sense in this hysterical debate, which has been hijacked by people who have no real knowledge or idea of the process, safeguards and benefits. Congratulations on your efforts to restore some realism and sanity into the case for indigenous gas. Well done. Keep up the good work.

LorraineYou make some very good points in your excellent reply to what was a mildly aggressive posting. Most people listening to FFR can't fail to suspect that they are being fed a line, but most of us don't have the perseverance to do the research to prove it. So thanks to you and your contributors here and on Facebook for some healthy challenging of the antis.

You said last night on BBC Look North that if the Americans has had major problems with fracking we would have heard about it. But we have heard about it. A number of States in the USA have banned fracking on health grounds. If you haven't heard that you are either very ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead the public

John,When you say you have heard about it, I assume you mean the propaganda that is commonly spread by the anti frackers to scare the general public. With all the lies, scaremongering and also intimidation, I have a lot of sympathy for them. I’m quite sure they will swing round when the facts are on the table and the first fracking operation has been conducted at KM8 safely and without incident. If you have a look at the FORGE Facebook page, you will notice an article from the EPA in the US (Environmental Protection Agency) who have spent the last 5 years conducting the most comprehensive and scientific study on fracking that has ever been done. To spare you searching for it, I have highlighted the main findings at the end of my answer. The point I was trying to make on BBC Look North is that in a country like the US, which has such a free press, strong litigious culture and thousands of ambulance chasing lawyers, coupled to the millions of fracking operations that have been conducted in recent years, surely there would be much more factual evidence on fracking related problems. Why are the streets in Texas not full of sick and dead people ? Why are the courts in Houston not full of legal cases? I would be the first to admit that there are probably many cases of contamination in the US related to biogenic gas, old wells, bad practices, poor regulations and even other industries, but almost nothing has been directly related to the process of fracking. The EPA study backs this up. And of course the UK has much more stringent regulatory regime than the US.

The next point you make is why some States in the US have banned it. The simple answer is that you would really need to ask each State. But from what I know, the shale gas deposits do not extend across the whole of the US, so it is quite easy for some States to declare a ban for political point scoring when they have no incentive to pursue it. There are very few States with a history of oil and gas production and also significant shale gas deposits, that have banned it. New York State is possibly the exception where a very high profile anti fracking campaign pressurised the mayor into banning it. Of course New York has many other revenue sources and has the financial muscle to say No but we can expect that they will reverse this decision in the future, particularly with the results of the EPA study below.

Lastly, you say that I am either very ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead the public. I may well be the former but I am certainly not doing the latter. I would say that the anti frackers have been misleading the public, and that your understanding of the facts corroborates this. I am also prepared to admit that I am not an expert, but by simply picking up the telephone, (like you could do as well) I can get access to a team of industry experts to get the facts and not the fiction. If you would like, I can try to arrange a meeting for you with some real experts. But so far the anti frackers, including their leaders, have not shown any appetite to meet experts to learn the truth.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing its long awaited, five-year study, which finds “hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources.”

“It is the most complete compilation of scientific data to date, including over 950 sources of information, published papers, numerous technical reports, information from stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports.”

EPA’s study actually builds upon a long list of studies that show the fracking process poses an exceedingly low risk of impacting underground sources of drinking water. It corroborates a “landmark study” by the U.S. Department of Energy in which the researchers injected tracers into hydraulic fracturing fluid and found no groundwater contamination after twelve months of monitoring. It is also in line with reports by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Government Accountability Office, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Groundwater Protection Council, to name just a few.

The report contradicts the most prevalent claim from anti-fracking activists, which have made “water contamination” the very foundation of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing. As EID reported in March, after heralding the report at its inception, anti-fracking organizations like the NRDC and InsideClimate News (ICN) later went into damage control, downplaying the forthcoming report, likely due to what it would conclude.

I watched the film Fracknation, then did as you suggested and did some further research. Are you aware that Loren Salsman, the 'landowner' in the film who states he loves Cabot, did in fact have his water contaminated (there is a video on youtube of him getting water from his processing shed) Loren Salsman works for the industry. Craig & Julie Sautner's water was contaminated and Cabot eventually bought their house from them for £167,000 They flattened it and sold the land to his neighbour for $4000 with the condition that no domestic property could be built on it EVER.

Dear Lisa Thank you for your e mail. Yes I saw the videos. There are several things you didn't pick up. The first is that he said that he used to be happy with his water and that was even before they installed the water separation unit in his garden. He also said that they have always had methane in the water anyway which is a very common occurrence across the U.S. He also mentioned about sealing the annulus in the Baker well in 2010 which shows that it was bad drilling practices that caused it. He then said it had been fixed , which you can do with all wells , just like your car can be fixed, and the levels had been dropping ever since. With some more knowledge you would know that it was related to the cementation of the well and has nothing to do with fracking. If you do not understand this then it may help to explain your position. I can put you in touch with some real professionals if you want. They are only a phone call away. Show that you are not like the other antis who don't want to know the truth and take me up on my offer of getting you to meet them.

Thank you Lorraine, I do already understand that contamination is more often caused by well failure, surface spills, blowouts etc, and not the actual fracking part of the process, but I do not understand why the contamination that did occur wasn't acknowledged at all in Fracknation, or did I fail to pick up on that? I am very worried by this, as it seems like they are trying to give the impression that the contamination didn't happen at all, and it matters very little to me exactly which part of the process caused the contamination as it is not entirely unrelated? This does not give me confidence that it couldn't happen here with more complicated geology to deal with than in the U.S, so I am very grateful for your offer to meet with real professionals. That will be an honour, so I shall take some time to do some further research and formulate some questions and get back to you. Thank you very much

Hi Lorraine, I have studied your site which mainly targets people's concerns about the safety of fracking, but doesn't address what is to me a much more serious concern, climate change.I originally thought that energy from gas would be so much better than coal, which is a dirty polluter releasing so much CO2, but I am saddened to learn that up to 10% losses are expected from our gas grid, and as methane is a 20 times worse greenhouse gas than CO2, gas actually accelerates climate change, which will soon be irreversible when the peat bogs in northern Canada start to thaw, with catastrophic consequences and cost. I often wish it was visible plastic bags coming out the chimney at Drax, and not an invisible pollutant gas, then people could see the damage being done to our very fragile atmosphere and even though we get cheap energy at the meter, the true cost of carbon pollution added up to 8% of our planets GDP last year, and it is only going to get worse.with fracking

I will use brackets around my answers as I go through the letter from Mr P Teasadale to answer his questions after consulting with my advisors.Hi Lorraine, I have studied your site which mainly targets people's concerns about the safety of fracking, but doesn't address what is to me a much more serious concern, climate change. I originally thought that energy from gas would be so much better than coal, (yes that is right for many reasons and not just because it is cleaner. Remember that coal can only be used for burning whereas gas can be used for thousands of things –simply google “ uses for gas” and you will be amazed), which is a dirty polluter releasing so much CO2 (We also need to understand that without large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere which were generated by volcanic activity, life on planet earth would never have started in the first place. Even now the rain forests in Brazil and elsewhere still need vast quantities of it), but I am saddened to learn that up to 10% losses are expected from our gas grid (who told you this nonsense? Gas is a very precious resource and for any company to sit back and just watch 10% of its resource leak away into the atmosphere without doing anything about would need its head examined. It would also be heavily fined and probably lose its License to Operate. Did you know that the gas has mecaptens in it to make it smell. Can you imagine the smell of 10% of the UKs gas going into the air. We would smell it all over the UK. And the other thing is that if all that gas leaked it would create clouds of gas that could form explosive mixtures. So why are explosions not going off all the time around the UK. Houses and villages would be getting blown up all the time. Please point me to the person that made this claim and I’ll show you an idiot or a liar!,) and as methane is a 20 times worse greenhouse gas than CO2, gas actually accelerates climate change (please tell me that you didn’t come to this conclusion yourself as it is completely false , which will soon be irreversible when the peat bogs in northern Canada start to thaw (you can’t be serious ), with catastrophic consequences and cost. I often wish it was visible plastic bags coming out the chimney at Drax, and not an invisible pollutant gas, then people could see the damage being done to our very fragile atmosphere and even though we get cheap energy at the meter, the true cost of carbon pollution added up to 8% of our planets GDP last year (Not another statistic that can’t be substantiated), and it is only going to get worse with fracking. ( No it will not. If you take gas out of your life, then throw away your furniture, your carpets, your clothes, your shoes, your sports stuff, your medicines, your TV, your children’s or grandchildren’s toys, your central heating, your gas cooker (assuming you have one) and thousands of other things. Just look around you. I am sure I can arrange for some experts to help you understand the science a bit more.

Alternatively, please look at this website and pass it on to your contacts who gave you the misleading information.

Excellent that you are taking on the deliberate misinformation from ideologues, who understand little of drilling. Do they really think it will poison the land?? Well where has that happened? Hopefully this will allow proper debate of the minor inconvenience that will result from this development.

I'm sure supporters of FORGE will find the link shown below of interest. This article first appeared almost a couple of months ago on the BBC website and is by Richard Anderson a BBC business reporter who has written many knowledgeable article on energy issues. Simply copy the link and paste it into your browser.www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33022640

Great to find a pro Fracking site. This country needs to get the gas out of the ground. It will provide jobs, energy security and make sure the gas heating will be there for the young and old in the winter. I have just started a government petition " to facilitate and accelerate the onshore fraccing for shale gas" . To vote, (Please go further up this Home page where a link to sign the petition has been added on behalf of David by Lorraine)https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104792Good luck

well done. so good to see some common sense.I live in Queensland and talk to farmers who work on drilling rigs ,they tell me many of these sites are fractured and of the hundreds of wells there has been no problems. I actually believe gas is much less invasive than wind turbines which totally take over the landscape permanently like here in Australia. good luck and God bless you.